Everyone is welcome to an opinion, but I disagree that "all logic" says he was just doing what his boss say asked him to do. I am keeping my mind open to all possibilities, including random break-in, DW kept a grudge for 10 years and acted alone, DW had help, DW had help from particular people, the contractor had something to do with it, a former business partner or competitor had something to do with it, a disgruntled family member was involved, etc. There is a lot we don't know, and IMHO, we don't know enough to know what all logic dictates. JMO.
I am agreeing with the neuroscientist.
There is so much we don't know, including anything that was going on prior to May 13. We don't even know anything about communications. And the PH was not the event where these details would be shared.
Neither Owens nor Bach have said anything at all to indicate that DW acted alone. In fact, to the contrary, Bach said that there is no evidence that only one person committed this crime.
Also, W-3's description of the Porsche driver's hair and look was very specific and totally conflicts with DW's appearance. Could be forgetfulness, but W-3 was interviewed in a timely manner and there is a big chance that the description is accurate.
And there is more than DW's and SS's DNA on the vest.
Based on all this, I am still open to the idea that another or others could have been involved on any of a variety of levels. Could be a high level of involvement or could be as insignificant as they knew DW was talking about SS and might have had some sort of plan brewing. The only thing I'm NOT open to is the idea that DW got set up by others to take the fall murders and had nothing to do with them.
Below is a bit of the transcript that is particularly interesting (the bench convo that got sealed). It is interesting because it makes it seem like LE believes the phones could be somewhere that is not one of the places directly associated with DW, and Bach did not want the information divulged to the defense):
Q Um, the cell phones that were used in this case, the
Savopoulos' cell phones that were used in communications in
this case, those were not recovered from Mr. Wint, his
belongings or homes associated with him?
MS. BACH: Your Honor, objection.
THE COURT: The objection is noted but it's
overruled.
You may answer yes or no.
MS. BACH: I would ask to approach.
THE COURT: You may approach.
(Bench conference).
MS. BACH: I'm going to ask --
THE COURT: No, no, you come to the bench. No, no,
Miss Bach, be clear, you don't make speeches in my courtroom,
you say what you've got to say at the bench.
MS. BACH: I'm going to just ask Your Honor for
permission to do this ex parte, if the Court believes it
needs to be disclosed to the defense it's fine but it has to
do with an open search warrant that is about to be executed.
THE COURT: Well --
MS. BACH: And I'm afraid that he's going to end up
-- I don't want him to be in a position where he has to
testify -- I'm worried that he's going to have to -- he's
going to not be able to testify without revealing that search
warrant is what my concern is.
THE COURT: Have the search warrants been executed?
MS. BACH: No, that's the problem.
THE COURT: Okay, so the question is whether or not
the cell phones have been recovered. The cell phones that
were used in communications in this case, those were not
recovered from Mr. Wint, his belongings or -- I can't find
it.
MR. AGO: Homes associated.
THE COURT: And so, okay, I guess -- I guess you
think the answer that he might reveal that he doesn't know?
MS. BACH: It goes beyond that. And that's why I'm
asking for permission to do this.
THE COURT: Well, step back for a minute, counsel,
if I think it's not a subject that's properly ex parte
I'll --
(Defense counsel excused from bench. Ex parte.
Said bench conference is ordered sealed and is not
transcribed herein).
THE COURT: All right, counsel, I'm going to
overrule the objection to the exact question that you asked.
Do you need it repeated by the court reporter?
MR. AGO: No, I think I know it.
THE COURT: Okay. You may come back.
BY MR. AGO:
Q The cell phones that were used in communication in
this case, decedent's cell phones, they were not recovered
from Mr. Wint, his, um, belongings, or the homes that he
stayed at, correct?
A Correct.
MR. AGO: This might draw the same objectionMR. AGO: This might draw the same objection, Your Honor, but I'll ask the question.
BY MR. AGO:
Q Is the cell phones, um, that we've discussed, those
same cell phones, were any of them used on or after May 13th
to call any numbers associated with Mr. Wint?
MS. BACH: Your Honor, objection.
THE COURT: Sustained